Last edited:
Cont: Global warming discussion V
- Thread starter lobosrul5
- Start date
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
I'd take that "hid" as being used more in the sense of the companies actively working to deceive the public and burying the truth sufficiently to prevent responsible action from being taken, rather than simply not telling.
Last edited:
But still relevant and not outdated. They are still doing it, and it still works.
The irony is misplaced. People who make an effort and have the time to look into this do know, but people who only read the headlines don't. They register that some people say one thing and others say another. It's how "a decades-long misinformation campaign waged by Exxon" worked. Big Oil didn't merely hide information. They didn't merely not tell people. They told them something else. The delivered fake news.
You should take a look at it.
That is the point, and it is made clear in the article.
However, Roger Ramjets is hellbent on making it seem as if the people who were lied to are the ones who are to blame for believing it.
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
Plenty of people knew, but their attempts to alert others were deliberately undermined by a disinformation campaign knowingly created and paid for by the fossil fuel companies.
No, industrialists aren't panicking. Your quotations don't describe any panic. They face competition, which is not a new thing. They always did. If anything is going to make auto makers panic, it'll be something like this:
And it's not about limiting consumption. The auto manufacturers have been busy doing that by lowering auto workers' wages. It's about limiting the profits of auto manufacturers. It's about raising wages, so workers can support themselves and their families. And it's about time.
It will lead to more consumption in working class families, which is another reason why wind and solar should be used to produce electricity instead of fossil fuels.
If those auto workers would also abolish the market economy that both impoverishes them and ruins the climate, it would be perfect!
Last edited:
These two obviously need convincing (an an education) and the only reason we know about them is because the story is too hilarious not to be printed. It's not "us", the general public that's out there gluing ourselves to roads and screwing up peoples days so we can wallow in the attention. That bit at the end just lets us know they're 1%, they probably flew private and made up that bit about their emissions and, no doubt, were relying on the family lawyer to cut a check for any fine(s) that they may incur.
So...uh....where have I declared nothing can be done? Oh, that's right, never. I'm just not buying into this whole idea of we can avoid 1.5C without a great deal of sacrifice and all it's goingt to take is a few extra guys putting up wind and solar (and hydrolectric, nuclear, and geothermal) and the world will instantly be saved. Same with simply blaming the oil companies, that's just taking the easy way out. We all like and want oil, even radical climate activists even though they pretend not to.
Anybody who's even remotely been paying attention has known about climate change for decades yet we still load up out giant RVs and drive thousands of miles to Burning Man...and talk about how "they're" wrecking the planet.
"... gluing ourselves to roads and screwing up peoples days so we can wallow in the attention."
'Because climate activists are narcissists trying to get attention, not to make people pay attention to global warming.'
"...they're 1%, they probably flew private and made up that bit about their emissions ..."
'Because there's no limit to who I can make up.'
'I can also make up what people mean when they advocate for the switch to renewables':
"... and all it's goingt to take is a few extra guys putting up wind and solar (and hydrolectric, nuclear, and geothermal) and the world will instantly be saved."
'Big Oil's manipulation and corruption of science and politics is inconsequential':
"Same with simply blaming the oil companies, that's just taking the easy way out. We all like and want oil, even radical climate activists even though they pretend not to."
Even though nobody but industrialists actually likes oil. Everybody likes power, in particular in the form of electricity, and most people don't give a **** where that power comes from and aren't inconvenienced in the slightest when it shifts from fossil fuels to wind and solar. They don't even know when it's one or the other.
"Anybody who's even remotely been paying attention has known about climate change for decades yet we still load up out giant RVs and drive thousands of miles to Burning Man...and talk about how "they're" wrecking the planet."
'Because nobody was ever fooled by Big Oil's propaganda and its corrupted scientists, politicians and media, and we all go to Burning Man, we damn 1%er hippies driving our giant RVs!'
The rant isn't worth the energy used to write, post and display it. Next time, look up the facts that people who have remotely been paying attention to global warming have known about for decades.
'Because climate activists are narcissists trying to get attention, not to make people pay attention to global warming.'
"...they're 1%, they probably flew private and made up that bit about their emissions ..."
'Because there's no limit to who I can make up.'
'I can also make up what people mean when they advocate for the switch to renewables':
"... and all it's goingt to take is a few extra guys putting up wind and solar (and hydrolectric, nuclear, and geothermal) and the world will instantly be saved."
'Big Oil's manipulation and corruption of science and politics is inconsequential':
"Same with simply blaming the oil companies, that's just taking the easy way out. We all like and want oil, even radical climate activists even though they pretend not to."
Even though nobody but industrialists actually likes oil. Everybody likes power, in particular in the form of electricity, and most people don't give a **** where that power comes from and aren't inconvenienced in the slightest when it shifts from fossil fuels to wind and solar. They don't even know when it's one or the other.
"Anybody who's even remotely been paying attention has known about climate change for decades yet we still load up out giant RVs and drive thousands of miles to Burning Man...and talk about how "they're" wrecking the planet."
'Because nobody was ever fooled by Big Oil's propaganda and its corrupted scientists, politicians and media, and we all go to Burning Man, we damn 1%er hippies driving our giant RVs!'
The rant isn't worth the energy used to write, post and display it. Next time, look up the facts that people who have remotely been paying attention to global warming have known about for decades.
Yes it's true we all like power and don't really care where it comes from. We also like putting gas in our cars, trucks and boats, we like flying to Thailand for a piss up, we like our plastics and other products produced with oil... In short we like modern life.
So just to flesh out the fantasy a little more. Are we talking replacing all power generation, converting all homes and businesses to electric heating and appliances globally, or is this just a developed nations thing? How about our cars, trucks, boats and commercial conveyances? All converted to, and powered by, wind and solar as well? All in time to avert 1.5C warming? Can we throw in world peace as well?
I do like the idea that driving a monster RV to Burning man, (and the resulting emissions) isn't my fault idea though. Big oil propaganda left me no choice.
So just to flesh out the fantasy a little more. Are we talking replacing all power generation, converting all homes and businesses to electric heating and appliances globally, or is this just a developed nations thing? How about our cars, trucks, boats and commercial conveyances? All converted to, and powered by, wind and solar as well? All in time to avert 1.5C warming? Can we throw in world peace as well?
I do like the idea that driving a monster RV to Burning man, (and the resulting emissions) isn't my fault idea though. Big oil propaganda left me no choice.
Yes, those of us who have access to them do actually like modern conveniences driven by electricity. We like convenient transport as well, and most places have done nothing to make anything other than gas-guzzling vehicles convenient.
You seem to be a victim of the delusion that the fossil fuel industry is there to serve the consumers, give them what they desire. But it's there there to sell a product and profit from the sale, and like Big Tobacco, Big Oil has been lying, deliberately, to those consumers about the harm done by the consumption, while making sure that everybody depended on fossil fuel.
Yes, we are obviously talking about "replacing all power generation ... in time to avert 1.5C warming." And not just as "a developed nations thing." But not at all coincidentally, developed nations consume considerably more fossil fuels than underdeveloped ones.
That the shift to renewables isn't happening is not because it's not feasible. It's because those developed nations aren't even trying. And the few who are aren't trying hard enough. They've all got other interests, which we let them get away with.
Who claimed that Big Oil propaganda left you no choice? It would be the same as claiming that Big Tobacco left you no choice. They both persuaded you to believe that your consumption of their products does no harm - in spite of their own science saying the opposite.
If you had "even remotely been paying attention," you would know about that.
Big Oil’s Decades-Long Gaslighting Campaign (MSNBC, July 22, 2023)
The Troll Army of Big Oil (Climate Town on YouTube, Jan 3, 2023)
Why not just build a stationary track around Earth's equator, build a stator (like a continuous train linked in a circle) to run on the track, then tether the stator to the moon? That could generate far more power than we use today. Don't worry; it would would take hundreds of millennia for it to slow the planet's rotation (or the moon's orbital period) enough for anyone besides astronomers and horologists to notice.
That's every bit as theoretically possible and realistically practical as replacing all fossil fuel use by the mid 2030s (which wouldn't even avert 1.5C warming, just delay it a few more years).
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,324
Just in case anyone was holding out hope that the warming might be reversible, and that the Antarctic weather system would protect the ice, Antarctica says "Yeah, nah..."
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-66724246
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-66724246
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
Nobody's talking about averting 1.5C warming, we know we are already locked in for that in any practical scenario. What (some of us) are trying to do is not let it go much beyond that.
But with all the selfish lazy sods who just want to party on saying it's impossible, it's going to be difficult.
Yesterday a retired friend of mine sent me an email with an article by Rowan Atkinson in the Observer - yes that Rowan Atkinson, who until now I didn't know was trained as an electronics engineer. So now he thinks he's an expert on EVs, and because he's a well known comedy actor people will listen to him. He says:-
And every single objection he makes to buying an EV is wrong.
Rowan Atkinson says he was 'duped' into buying an electric car to save the environment. I wish this was some kind of attempt at humor, but unfortunately (as we all know) he isn't actually funny. It's sad to see someone talking about a subject that 'in theory' he should know something about, and getting it so wrong. But millions of Brits will read that article and - like my English friend - think he knows what he is talking about. That's even sadder.
How are we going to do this thing when even people who purport to be fighting the good fight are actually working for the enemy?
I agree, but I was responding to dann's post where he literally said yes, we "obviously" are talking about replacing all [fossil-fueled, presumably] power generation in time to avert 1.5C warming.
Atkinson is wrong about lithium battery lifetimes, the practicality of synthetic fuel or hydrogen engines, and the economics of the fast replacement of new cars. (Does he think cars get junked when their 3 year leases expire? He might; it's probably been a very long time since he drove or rode in a 4 year old car.) He's not wrong about battery weight and range being an unsolved problem for trucks, assuming by trucks he means commercial cargo hauling vehicles rather than pickup trucks used as cars by suburbanites. And he's not completely wrong about the large past energy investment in existing cars. On the face of it that's just a sunk cost fallacy. But the flip side is the even larger present or future energy investment that would be required to replace all those existing cars with new electric ones any faster than the normal replacement cycle (and we can't even come close to doing that with current production levels). We can't get from here to there with some all-out crash program to replace every car (along with every power plant, boiler, furnace, kiln, truck, cargo ship, locomotive, plane...) while conducting business as usual in all other respects. The only "theres" with meaningfully curtailed warming we can get to are ones that, one way or another, involve fewer cars and less driving, at least over a long transition period if not indefinitely.
I don't know anything about Atkinson's personal life or politics, but I'm going to assume unless told otherwise that his lifestyle doesn't resemble that of the characters he portrays. Rather, being about as wealthy as his enduring popularity suggests, and working for media supported largely by the sponsorship of large corporate interests, he's most likely to want to party on, or at least be influenced by his friends who do.
Atkinson was cherry-picking - and has admitted that he was. He uses the tired old excuse that everybody cherry-picks and that he did it "to encourage debate":
One comment is about Atkinson's vested interest in gas guzzlers:
Mr.Bean(Rowan Atkinson) - Car Collection | House Tour 2018 (Gym4u on YouTube, Sep 13, 2018)
See also:
Fact check: why Rowan Atkinson is wrong about electric vehicles (TheGuardain, June 8, 2023)
Debunking Mr Bean’s electric tropes: EVs are far better for the planet than ICE vehicles (TheDriven.io, June 5, 2023)
That said, proper infrastructure with bike lanes and efficient public transport based on solar and wind-generated power is still a hell of a lot better for the environment than even private EVs.
I'll get back to why nation states aren't interested, mainly based on this.
One comment is about Atkinson's vested interest in gas guzzlers:
Mr.Bean(Rowan Atkinson) - Car Collection | House Tour 2018 (Gym4u on YouTube, Sep 13, 2018)
See also:
Fact check: why Rowan Atkinson is wrong about electric vehicles (TheGuardain, June 8, 2023)
Debunking Mr Bean’s electric tropes: EVs are far better for the planet than ICE vehicles (TheDriven.io, June 5, 2023)
That said, proper infrastructure with bike lanes and efficient public transport based on solar and wind-generated power is still a hell of a lot better for the environment than even private EVs.
I'll get back to why nation states aren't interested, mainly based on this.
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
No, he's wrong there too. He said batteries were 'absurdly' heavy (for all electric vehicles) and a 'complete non-starter' for trucks. Both statements are untrue.
He might have had a point if he didn't lay on the hyperbole, but then he would have to water down his argument.
I did the math on weight when I bought my Leaf. Kerb weight was a bit heavier than my previous Nissan Sentra, but it's a larger car (which I appreciate for the better visibility over other vehicles) so the proportional difference isn't much.
The Tesla Semi is doing the job for Pepsi running for up to 12 hours a day and 250 to 450 miles. There may be some routes that aren't yet suitable for electric trucks, but we don't need to replace all of them just yet. Even the lower range models made by other manufacturers probably suit 99% of use cases in the UK.
Here's the 5 electric truck models that Volvo sell in New Zealand:-
The full range. All ready. Electric.
FH, FM, FMX models 44 tonnes GCW and 300km range.
FE model 26 tonnes GCW and 300km range.
FL model 16 tonnes GCW and 450km range.
And here's an example of a 'big' electric truck:-
XDR80TE Mining Dump Truck
Loaded weight 109t
Payload 72t
range 140km
That thing would go all day in typical quarry operation.
It's even possible to convert a conventional truck to electric for quiet emission-free running:-
Foodstuffs and EECA partner up to build NZs first 100% electric refrigerated logistics truck
But he's still wrong. Old gas cars don't magically stop needing oil changes and replacement parts, in fact they need more maintenance as they get older. A friend of mine recently spent $9000 on a second-hand diesel engine to replace the one in his Mazda ute that blew up. And now that one is starting to smoke and needs a service.Myriad said:
Rowan Atkinson is right about one thing though. EVs do tend to last longer due to the cleaner drive train and fewer moving parts. No exhaust system to rust out or catalytic converter to clog up. No belts to replace. No vibration shaking everything to bits, no heat cooking stuff. The engine bay stays clean as a whistle and the 12V battery (which most EVs still need for accessory power) generally lasts much longer since it doesn't need to power a starter motor (another part you don't have to worry about).
My Leaf was 8 years old when I bought it and looked practically brand new. When the battery finally dies (assuming I don't go first) I will replace it rather than buying a new car, both because it will be cheaper and because I like my current car. No reason it shouldn't last 20 years like my previous two gas cars (which frankly were shot by then - I had them crushed). If only Nissan would offer their battery swap service in New Zealand...
Actually we will replace them in the 'normal replacement cycle'. Most countries have set a time limit of 2035 for stoppiing sales of new gas cars, but the switchover to electric will have largely occurred long before then. Contrary to Rowan Atkinson's concern, the fast turnover of new electric cars after 2-3 years use is good for that. In the next 10 years EVs will gradually displace gas cars on the second-hand market, speeding up adoption.
New EVs have much longer battery life than my 2011 leaf, and should easily last more than 10 years without severe capacity loss. Even the new Leaf is showing much less degradation than older models. In New Zealand most car dealers don't sell used gas cars that are more than 10 years old anyway, because they are generally worn out, unreliable, and have to be sold cheap so the profit is low.
EV manufacturing capacity has greatly increased recently. The world's largest EV battery maker, Chinese company CATL, is only running at 60% capacity despite new car sales in China being over 30% electric. Most car makers can switch from gas to electric without having to increase total capacity at all. Some, like Stellantis, are already doing it. So all that is happening is their customers are buying electric cars instead of gas cars. But some other car companies - those that don't switch to EVs - will be making less cars. Some may soon be making no cars at all.
Another concern people shouldn't have is that there might not be sufficient resources of metals like lithium and cobalt. These are actually being used more in other things (glass, steels) and alternatives are being found for EVs. Batteries are moving away from cobalt both to avoid supply issues and increase longevity. The latest batteries are using sodium (that stuff in salt) which is very abundant. Tesla have developed a motor that doesn't need rare earth magnets - not that it matters much because new ore deposits were quickly discovered once we bothered looking for them.
There is no 'all-out crash program to replace every car', 2030 is over 6 years away! Any car maker who can't make the switch in that time shouldn't be in business. Tesla even gave away their patents to make it easier for them! And we don't need to replace every car, plane, ship etc., just the majority of CO2 emitters.
It's not hard as you make out either. Many boilers, kilns, furnaces and locomotives are already electric powered. Designs for ship that use wind and solar are already on the drawing board, and other solutions are being investigated. Synthetic fuels may be a part of it - but only if they can be made much cheaper than at present.
Rowan Atkinson says we're 'not there yet' with batteries, so we will have to use synthetic fuels and hydrogen. But we are further along than he thinks, while those other solutions are not. For example Toyota says it is developing an engine that runs directly on hydrogen, but they haven't actually produced one yet. Hydrogen and synthetic fuels are still very expensive, with no indication that they will get much cheaper. Batteries OTOH are getting cheaper and better.
No, that's not it. He is a car enthusiast who says that EVs are 'a bit soulless', which reveals that he is in fact a petrol-head who wants to drive a gas car for the nostalgia. And there's nothing wrong with that. I just wish he was more honest about his motives.
Rowan Atkinson says we're 'not there yet', and therefore you probably shouldn't buy an electric car. But this is lie. There are dozens of electric cars for sale in the UK right now that would suit the majority of people looking to buy a new car, like AutoExpress's Affordable Electric Car of the Year 2023, the MG4:-
What Rowan Atkinson is doing is not helpful. By discouraging people from buying an EV he is making it more likely that we will need an 'all-out crash program' to replace every car - the very thing we are trying to avoid. This attitude that 'if we can't do it all right now then we shouldn't do anything' is bogus and dangerous.
You don't even have to want to save the planet to want an electric car. It wasn't my primary motive. Mostly I just wanted to try out this new technology, and perhaps save on fuel costs. Zero emissions are better not only so you can feel less guilty, but because it doesn't smell and drip stuff on the garage floor. Even if there was no global warming crisis, an electric car could still be a worthwhile purchase.
So all the objections he has are irrelevant to the prospective purchaser. Let them make their mind up according to how they feel about the car itself, not put them off for 'reasons'. Then we will get faster adoption of EVs and maybe get closer to meeting our goals without so much pain.
Last edited:
Does anybody here have any experience with electrical motorcycles?
When I bought my most recent Kawasaki, I considered going electric, but it seemed to be too niche at the time, but nowadays ordinary motorcycle dealers have them, and the infrastructure (based on electric cars) has improved considerably since then.
There are even plans to manufacture electric motorcycles in Denmark - the design based on an old Danish motorcycle from the 1940s and '50s - but I'm not sure that they are realistic.
When I bought my most recent Kawasaki, I considered going electric, but it seemed to be too niche at the time, but nowadays ordinary motorcycle dealers have them, and the infrastructure (based on electric cars) has improved considerably since then.
There are even plans to manufacture electric motorcycles in Denmark - the design based on an old Danish motorcycle from the 1940s and '50s - but I'm not sure that they are realistic.
Climate Week NYC
Join us at Climate Week NYC - We Can. We Will. (ClimateWeekNYC - Sep 17-24)
Maybe newyorkguy can tell us more.
Join us at Climate Week NYC - We Can. We Will. (ClimateWeekNYC - Sep 17-24)
Maybe newyorkguy can tell us more.
TurkeysGhost
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2018
- Messages
- 35,043
It depends on why people are buying motorcycles. As a cheap commuter vehicle, an electric motorcycle will probably work just as well as a gas motorcycle.
But I imagine a lot of buyers of motorcycles are seeking them out as recreational, rather than practical, reasons. Not sure an electric motorcycle will have the same thrill factor. Electric motor means no gear shifting, for example, and no noise or rattle associated with motorcycling. As a motorcyclist in prior years, it just doesn't strike me as much of a fun riding experience, though I would point out that electric motors have tremendous potential for instantaneous power and acceleration.
Ebikes seem to take a lot of the market for practical, short distance, low speed commuter vehicles and are pretty cheap. I just don't know how much of a market there are between slow, cheap ebikes and ICE motorcycles for EV motorcycles to be that popular.
Ebikes really seem to hit the sweet spot for many people. Decent speeds for urban and low speed commuting, relatively cheap, and still light enough to treat like a bicycle when it comes to storage and other practical concerns.
In my case, it's all of the above. As I've mentioned before, a bicycle, sometimes combined with public transport, is usually all I need, but occasionally a motorcycle comes in handy, e.g. for going to venues outside of Copenhagen or visiting friends in other parts of the (small) country. 200-300 km would suffice, and most electric motorcycles can do that, according to the specifications I've seen. The lack of "rattle" will probably make then last longer.
Most E-bikes around here seem to be 'hybrid', i.e. not fossil fuel + electricity, but pedals + electricity, meant for people who like the extra power from electricity when they are going up against the wind or up a hill. I think the electric engine cuts out automatically when your pedaling speed is more than 20 km/h.
We don't have many hills, and as for wind, we are currently having a couple of those windy days when the price of electricity goes below zero, so owners of electric vehicles will no doubt be charging them today - and Hans will probably be doing his laundry.
As for the "slow, cheap E-bikes," people will still get around faster on one of those in the city than they will in a car.
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
Perhaps you should try one. Motorcyclists who have done remark on how the lower noise and vibration makes the experience more enjoyable, especially on long trips.
The clip also mentions ClimateWeek NYC.
Protests outside the Bank of America tower in Bryant Park; "the bank is the third-largest financer of fossil fuels."
Steve Milloy & JunkScience:
Steve Milloy is one of the really bad guys, spreading disinformation for both Big Tobacco and Big Oil.
Last edited:
TurkeysGhost
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2018
- Messages
- 35,043
Not likely anytime soon. My motorcycling days ended when I moved away from a place with weather that could tolerate year round riding, and I'm not likely to own a motorcycle in addition to a car unless I live in a place with a garage.
Most of the e motorcycles I see top out around 200 ish miles of range on a single charge, which is pretty outstanding. I suspect very few motorcyclists are riding anywhere near that much in a single day. As someone who has done trips longer than this, it's pretty taxing even with a bike set up for touring.
Ebikes remain pretty expensive though. A Honda CBR600RR, which is a popular and excellent sport bike, is about 12K brand new. Lower performance models can be well less than $10,000 new. And the used market is flush with very cheap ICE motorcycles, which is not yet the case with e motorcycles.
The cheapest electric motorcycles with a top speed above highway speeds are a good bit more expensive, about 1.5-2x as much as their venerable ICE peers.
The CBR300R has a top speed north of 90 mph and costs less than $5,000 brand new, the Zero bike with a similar top speed is just shy of $12,000. That's just an example. Cheaper electronic models exist, but have top speeds that indicate to me they'd struggle at highway speeds, and even in that regard small engine ICE motorcycles that also have lower top speeds are even cheaper (a kawasaki 125cc is like $3,500).
As a purely practical vehicle an electric motorcycle seems a winner, presumably having way less maintenance requirements than their ICE counterparts, though maintaining a motorcycle is often part of the joy of owning one (especially in comparison to modern cars which increasingly get harder and harder to work on).
TurkeysGhost
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2018
- Messages
- 35,043
Yes, that's my point. A slow ebike is great for cities, and a motorcycle probably won't get you much additional utility because city speeds rarely require the additional power. You'd only really want an electric motorcycle if you're exiting the city and hitting higher speed roads, which comes at escalating costs for EV motorcycles compared to much cheaper ebikes.
The electric motorcycle is a very narrow niche between the cheapness and utility of a ebikes which excel in low speed environments like cities and the super cheap ICE motorcycles that can achieve highway speeds for a fraction of the cost of their high-speed electric counterparts.
Bad news
2030 UK petrol and diesel sales ban delayed to 2035 (Carbuyer.co.uk, Sep 20, 2023)
UK Government delays ban on petrol and diesel cars to 2035 (EVO.co.uk, Sep 20, 2023)
Ford UK says any delay on government petrol car ban risks EV transition (Reuters, Sep 20, 2023)
2030 UK petrol and diesel sales ban delayed to 2035 (Carbuyer.co.uk, Sep 20, 2023)
UK Government delays ban on petrol and diesel cars to 2035 (EVO.co.uk, Sep 20, 2023)
Ford UK says any delay on government petrol car ban risks EV transition (Reuters, Sep 20, 2023)
Last edited:
TurkeysGhost
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2018
- Messages
- 35,043
Interesting to see a big automaker giving them grief over a delay. Gotta say, they have a good point about their grievance here. They've been investing heavily to overhaul their product lines to comply with the coming green economy, and this arbitrary push-back of the date is no way to thank them.
The UK is a silly place and looks like it's only going to get more silly for the foreseeable future. Sad to see a country seemingly dead-set on making themselves worse off in the long run for no good reason.
Last edited:
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
A bit disappointing, but not that bad. Most countries have a cutoff date of 2035 or 2040. But EV adoption has already reached tipping point in many countries, so the changeover will probably be nearly complete long before these dates.
China set an aggressive target and what did gas car makers do? Kept making them right up to the limit. Now China is swamped with new cars nobody wants because they will soon be illegal. Unfortunately the World has already paid the CO2 cost of making those cars, which no doubt will be sold cheap in other countries to get rid of them. That may delay the introduction of EVs more than if a more reasonable date was set. Germany for example is panicking about Chinese cars flooding their market, resulting in calls to remove incentives for EVs and put them on gas cars instead!
Kudos to Ford for being on the right side for a change. But they needn't worry. Just make awesome EVs at good prices and they will sell. Next year's EV are going to be truly awesome, allaying fears people have about range, charging speed and longevity. They will also be cheaper.
By 2030 EVs will be well established and only dyed-in-the-wool Luddites will reject them. And the news media of course. How long before they stop bashing EVs at every opportunity?
Yes, the UK is a silly place. So are most places. But they will come around.
More than 1m electric vehicles now on UK roads
Ford is in excellent position to dominate the UK market if they can produce small EVs at a good price. If Ford doesn't do it, someone else will. With nearly 50% of the fleet being 10 years old or older, and petrol prices going up again, many people must be thinking about getting a newer more efficient car - and many of them may choose an EV.
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
Nobody likes big banks, so they are a good target for protests even if they are not really responsible. If it makes money harder to get for fossil fuel projects it's all good. But we must remember that it is the demand for oil that makes it profitable to extract. The more we can drive that down the less banks will be interested in investing in the industry.
Ah yes, Steven Milloy. We thoroughly debunked his shtick long ago - does anyone still listen to him?
Last edited:
novaphile
Quester of Doglets
I tried an electric motorcycle at an environment fair.
It had a gearbox and they strongly advised me not to take it out of third gear.
It was insanely responsive and absolutely scared me senseless.
That was about 20 years ago, so I'm guessing there are all kinds of things on the market now.
It had a gearbox and they strongly advised me not to take it out of third gear.
It was insanely responsive and absolutely scared me senseless.
That was about 20 years ago, so I'm guessing there are all kinds of things on the market now.
TurkeysGhost
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2018
- Messages
- 35,043
There's a huge difference between having an EV as part of a larger catalog of vehicles which includes mostly ICE vehicles and a catalog that is entirely EV vehicles, which seems to have been what Ford was anticipating for the UK market given these promised deadlines.
TurkeysGhost
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2018
- Messages
- 35,043
I tried an electric motorcycle at an environment fair.
It had a gearbox and they strongly advised me not to take it out of third gear.
It was insanely responsive and absolutely scared me senseless.
That was about 20 years ago, so I'm guessing there are all kinds of things on the market now.
Even rather wimpy ICE motorcycles have a power to weight ratio sufficient to get you into trouble (even the small sport bikes can be stood up into a wheelie if you go heavy on the throttle), but yeah the instantaneous power of an electric motor is even more pronounced.
My understanding of these EV motorcycles is that they generally have some computerized power control that will modulate the throttle sensitivity to something more manageable and prevent riders from going into unintended wheelies from the insane torque potential of an electric motor.
lobosrul5
Philosopher
I tried an electric motorcycle at an environment fair.
It had a gearbox and they strongly advised me not to take it out of third gear.
It was insanely responsive and absolutely scared me senseless.
That was about 20 years ago, so I'm guessing there are all kinds of things on the market now.
You might find a TV documentary called Long Way Up interesting, if you can find it.
The journey covered a 13,000-mile (21,000 km) route, through 13 countries, over 100 days, starting on 5 September 2019 and finishing on 14 December 2019, using prototype Harley-Davidson LiveWire electric motorcycles that had been converted into adventure bikes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Way_Up
Its Ewan McGregor and Charlie Boorman riding electric motorcycles from Ushuaia to LA.
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
Yes. Every electric drive train more sophisticated than a golf cart generally has torque control, if for no other reason than to stop the controller from blowing up or stripping gears etc. It is commonly used to prevent wheel spin, which saves wear on tires and improves handling. I don't know about electric motorcycles, but theoretically torque control could be used to prevent the bike from flipping or skidding out of control under heavy acceleration.
Something to consider is that unlike a gas engine, an electric motor has maximum torque at zero rpm, linearly dropping to zero at maximum rpm. This causes an electric motor to regulate its speed much better than a gas motor does. It also gives it insane controllable torque at low speed. No need to slip a clutch or have lots of gears to get lots of useful torque at low speed.
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
"...including water management and revenue collection systems in emerging markets".
More like making 'green' than washing it. A cheaper method of pumping water to areas without grid electricity is a way to make more profit, especially when you have a captive market. Water might be essential to life, but selling water to people who desperately need it is where the real money is.
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
Phil Mason's (aka Thunderf00t) latest video about geoengineering.
ThatGuy11200
Muse
Can you give a brief summary?
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
Something about releasing particulates into the atmosphere to reflect sunlight. As if we haven't screwed around with it enough already.
I didn't watch the whole video because Thunderf00t's shtick is getting tiresome. But this 'solution' would be temporary at best. The worst thing is that if it worked it would just encourage people to carry on with 'business as usual' releasing even more greenhouse gasses, then we would be in even more of a pickle.
Reminds me of the story about the lady who swallowed a fly.
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
He doesn’t say it’s a long term solution, it’s a stopgap measure that we could use to bridge to getting to zero emissions. He also explains why planting trees is not going to make a big difference. And he says that he doesn’t expect serious, timely action to happen until the average citizen really starts to feel the consequences of global warming.